Breaking: DC judge Amit Mehta upholds House subpoena for Trump financial records https://t.co/zSe5HnBSQt pic.twitter.com/B8xC5xnREg— Mike Scarcella (@MikeScarcella) May 20, 2019
Please to note this is a final order, as I expected, and did not stay the subpoenas pending appeal. Unless the Appellate Court issues a TRO PDQ, the documents will be released (and I think odds that they will are slim and none. Trump's lawyers couldn't get one in the trial court, why should the appellate court jump like frogs? Unless they've got a legal argument they didn't trot out already, they don't have grounds or an argument for a TRO at any level.)
And this is why I say that:
And this is why I say that:
Judge Amit Mehta refused to put his ruling on hold pending Trump's expected appeal. https://t.co/6Dy984PAw1 via @elliskkim pic.twitter.com/9mmGEpjs9h— Mike Scarcella (@MikeScarcella) May 20, 2019
The trial court didn't even find a reason to let this go to trial. Trump's lawyers said all they could say in the hearing, and it wasn't enough. Appeals have to be on the record from the court below, so what do they add now? They can't say they weren't allowed to present all their evidence and arguments. They'll have to challenge the reasoning, and I don't think that will get them very far.
Look for more of the same in court on Wednesday, and shortly thereafter.
(Expect the POTUS to denounce the trial judge's ethnicity in 3...2...1.... He has a rally tonight, you know he will.)
(I'm just gonna tack this on, because I'm gonna run this right down into the ground. Basic appellate procedure 101: the appeal of a case does not automatically stay the ruling of the trial court. If you are sued in a civil case, and lose, a judgment is entered against you. If you appeal, unless you file an appeal bond (in Texas, anyway, and IIRC), judgment can be enforced against you even as you appeal the case. The appeal bond is to make the winner whole in case the appellate court upholds the trial court (so you can't appeal and duck payment and then run out after the appeal, avoiding judgment execution).
This was a case for an injunction. Trump's lawyers seem to have skipped the TRO and gone to the Temporary Injunction, which required a hearing with all parties. The court denied the injunction and entered judgment for the Congress, meaning the subpoeanas have the full force of law with no obstacle to their enforcement. Trump asked the trial court to stay its opinion pending appeal. The trial court refused because Trump literally stated no grounds for quashing the subpoenas. Since the court finds no argument in favor of Trump's position, there's no reason to give Trump relief while he appeals. Unless the appellate court issues a stay (effectively a TRO), there's nothing to keep those documents from being turned over. Indeed, it would be a violation of the subpoena at this point to point to the appeal as a reason to deny the subpoena.
Appeals don't stop things unless you get the court to stop things. Unless Trump finds dumber lawyers on the appellate bench, those documents go to Congress sometime soon. All Congress has to do is say "Nope, we're not waiting anymore" (they agreed to an informal stay while the trial court heard arguments for an injunction). The speed with which the trial court disposed of this matter tells you how strong a case Trump was able to make.
None at all, basically. Exactly what the trial court said in its order.)
(Expect the POTUS to denounce the trial judge's ethnicity in 3...2...1.... He has a rally tonight, you know he will.)
(I'm just gonna tack this on, because I'm gonna run this right down into the ground. Basic appellate procedure 101: the appeal of a case does not automatically stay the ruling of the trial court. If you are sued in a civil case, and lose, a judgment is entered against you. If you appeal, unless you file an appeal bond (in Texas, anyway, and IIRC), judgment can be enforced against you even as you appeal the case. The appeal bond is to make the winner whole in case the appellate court upholds the trial court (so you can't appeal and duck payment and then run out after the appeal, avoiding judgment execution).
This was a case for an injunction. Trump's lawyers seem to have skipped the TRO and gone to the Temporary Injunction, which required a hearing with all parties. The court denied the injunction and entered judgment for the Congress, meaning the subpoeanas have the full force of law with no obstacle to their enforcement. Trump asked the trial court to stay its opinion pending appeal. The trial court refused because Trump literally stated no grounds for quashing the subpoenas. Since the court finds no argument in favor of Trump's position, there's no reason to give Trump relief while he appeals. Unless the appellate court issues a stay (effectively a TRO), there's nothing to keep those documents from being turned over. Indeed, it would be a violation of the subpoena at this point to point to the appeal as a reason to deny the subpoena.
Appeals don't stop things unless you get the court to stop things. Unless Trump finds dumber lawyers on the appellate bench, those documents go to Congress sometime soon. All Congress has to do is say "Nope, we're not waiting anymore" (they agreed to an informal stay while the trial court heard arguments for an injunction). The speed with which the trial court disposed of this matter tells you how strong a case Trump was able to make.
None at all, basically. Exactly what the trial court said in its order.)
No comments:
Post a Comment